Swanson v. Alza Corporation

Filing 122

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore finding as moot Defendant's 110 & 119 Motion to Appear by Telephone; denying Plaintiff's 120 Motion to Appear by Telephone. The parties are ordered to meet and confer before seeking further court intervention. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6

DR. JAMES M. SWANSON,
Plaintiffs,

7
8

v.
ALZA CORPORATION,

9

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 12-04579-PJH (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE

10

(Dkt. Nos. 110, 119 & 120)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On December 13, 2013, Defendant ALZA Corporation filed a declaration and request for

13
14

a telephonic conference to enforce the Court’s meet and confer requirement. (Dkt. Nos. 110 &

15

119.) In the letter, ALZA informed the Court of its repeated, unsuccessful attempts to meet and

16

confer with Plaintiff regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Id.
On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a separate request for a telephonic conference. (Dkt.

17
18

No. 120.) Plaintiff explained that “Dr. Swanson’s alleged delay in serving these supplemental

19

responses (despite there being no discovery cutoff) can be attributed to ALZA’s tactics.” Id.at 2.

20

Plaintiff also informed the Court that ALZA refuses Plaintiff’s requests to meet and confer

21

regarding ALZA’s production of documents. Id. In the absence of a joint letter written by the

22

parties, any dispute pertaining to ALZA’s document production is not properly before the Court.
On December 18, 2013, ALZA withdrew its request for a telephonic conference in light of

23
24

Plaintiff’s willingness to meet and confer. (Dkt. No. 121.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

Accordingly, the Court terminates ALZA’s request (Dkt. Nos. 110 & 119) as moot, and

2

DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a telephonic conference (Dkt. No. 120) on the grounds that the

3

parties have not met and conferred. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith

4

before seeking further court intervention.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2013

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2